Lessig is quoted as saying:
"commercial enterprises have evolved that are closely linked with specific images and stories; . . "
As you know, I am opposed to both patents and copyrights.
However, I am also opposed to someone taking another persons name. Pretending to be that person is fraud. So, my name and/or trademark is mine and belongs to me. So, the Mickey Mouse trademark belongs to Disney and anyone using it is pretending to be Disney - a simple case of fraud.
Within the last couple of days, the Terminator has brought suit against an ad that has his picture with the words "Arnold says . . . . ". It pretends that Arnold has recommended the product - a simple case of stealing his name.
In similar fashion, anyone should be able to copy your material, but they can't put Ray Evans Harrell on it. If people want a Harrell - it will have your name on it. Will people go for the cheaper version. Some will, but most will prefer the real thing.
Ballantine tried an experiment some years ago. They published hardbacks and paperbacks at the same time. Enough people preferred to buy the hardback to keep the experiment going for quite some time. Maybe they still do it - or another publisher does. I bet Brian knows.
Harry
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray wrote:
So, here is another opinion from a pretty good music critic and mathmatician. A good site to read about this would be the Center for Arts and Culture Website articles at this URL: http://www.culturalpolicy.org/issuepages/results.cfm?issue=Law&info=Read&int =noREH January 18, 2003 The Owners of Culture vs. the Free Agents By EDWARD ROTHSTEIN The Stanford Law School professor Lawrence Lessig called it the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act." And even though Mickey himself does not figure in the law or in the Supreme Court's 7-to-2 decision to uphold the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act on Wednesday, the smiling rodent still has a starring role in discussions of the case. This is partly because the act, which expanded copyright protection for intellectual property another 20 years, was actively supported by major corporations in the entertainment industry. Indeed, without the copyright extension - which protects corporate copyrights for 95 years, and individual copyright for 70 years after the creator's death - the Disney mascot, whose squeaky-voiced endorsements are associated with the corporation's films, resorts, cruises and amusement parks, would have been entering the public domain next year. He would be a free agent. But there are other serious issues involved in addition to serious commercial interests. And opponents of the act, led by Mr. Lessig, who took on the case pro bono and argued it before the Supreme Court, see this defeat as the first battle in a major war. On one side they see corporate power and quashed possibility; on the other, creativity, openness and the possibilities of the Internet. In a speech last summer (oreillynet .com/pub/au/1015), Mr. Lessig declared, "Ours is less and less a free society." Far from being free, he argued, "culture is owned." Mr. Lessig, an activist in the area of copyright and intellectual property law, advocates a radical weakening of its protections and a dramatic strengthening of the public domain. He has also argued that the Internet, which began as a free and open network, is in imminent danger of similarly becoming a constricted arena molded by corporate and governmental interests. This perspective was influential in shaping the ideological direction of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at the Harvard Law School (cyber.law.harvard.edu), where he taught before leaving for Stanford and founding the Stanford Center for Internet and Society at the Stanford Law School (cyberlaw.stanford .edu). Mr. Lessig's arguments in his books ("Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace" and "The Future of Ideas") even have countercultural overtones, with their invocations of an earlier, more natural world disrupted by corporate power and misused technology. And his notion that copyright is crushing artistic creativity is actually an inversion of the traditional view of copyright, which was seen as an incentive and protection. Mr. Lessig argues that this has occurred because copyright itself has changed. It has been extended to cover so long a period that it has ceased to serve as an incentive. In 1790 it lasted for 14 years and was renewable for 14 more; now it affects grandchildren. Mr. Lessig is hoping authors and creators will sign a Founders' Copyright contract (creativecommons.org), which will voluntarily limit copyright to just 14 years and then place the work in the public domain. But copyright controls have expanded over time for a variety of reasons: people live longer; commercial enterprises have evolved that are closely linked with specific images and stories; authors and publishers have different needs and expectations; international commerce has required equivalent protections. In fact the 1998 law Mr. Lessig challenged was intended to match the kinds of copyright protections already offered by the European Union. Yes, there are sometimes absurd problems incurred in obtaining permissions. Yes, there are also examples of abuse and intolerable schemes to prevent the copying of music and software. The 20-year extension may also be too long (as the Court seemed prepared to grant). But the recurring argument that culture is now "owned" and must be freed and that creativity is being stifled as a result is overwrought. What innovations, for example, are being thwarted by corporate control over Mickey Mouse? In a lecture in August, Mr. Lessig gave a kind of answer, suggesting that today's rules would never allow Disney to flourish in the same way. Walt Disney required the public domain to create his films, drawing on Grimm's Fairy Tales. Mickey's first major cartoon ("Steamboat Willie") was based on a new Buster Keaton film, "Steamboat Bill." Today, Mr. Lessig asserts, the public domain is poorer and such imitation restricted. But the public domain is larger now than in 1928, not smaller, and the continuing influence of copyrighted works should not be underestimated. Even Disney had to purchase rights to "Winnie the Pooh." Moreover, his Mickey cartoon was hardly, as Mr. Lessig joked, a matter of "rip, mix and burn," resembling the actions of today's compilers and copiers. It was an innovative parody. And courts have tended to allow this kind of enterprise (witness the publication of "The Wind Done Gone," Alice Randall's African-American version of "Gone With the Wind.") It may be that one reason passions have flared so high is that a dominant style of popular culture in the 1990's was pastiche, which is indeed hampered by copyright. But if cultural health were really affected by whether Mickey and his contemporaries were in the public domain, there may be other, more serious problems to consider first - like why a truly creative culture can't find other ideas to work with. There really are copyright issues to discuss, but not as part of the kind of ideological romance that has grown up in the current debates. A problem is posed by technological innovations that allow easy copying and transmission; there are dangers to the incentives copyright establishes. So new forms of control develop and those controls, in turn, pose dangers. But this is not the war that Mr. Lessig and his colleagues have in mind. As it turns out, the extension of 20 years means that copyright law has held off for a while what will be a large-scale entrance of television and movies into the public domain. In the meantime, the absence of a public domain has not hampered creativity in either medium. And it will give Mickey and Minnie and Goofy plenty of time to prepare for becoming public figures. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tanya Campbell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 1:37 PM Subject: RE: [Futurework] globalizing and privatizing R and D > Tanya, > > As you may have gathered from my answer to Arthur, I'm in favor of > international cooperation and communication. So, I like the idea. > > Apparently, the program sends problems out worldwide and pays for any > solutions. Perhaps that Indian chemist was stimulated to find the solution > for which he got $75,000. Bully for him. Maybe, without the offer he > wouldn't have looked at the problem at all. > > Any benefit from the idea will probably work its way back to India - as > ideas do, unless restricted by patent or copyright. > > But, then the sooner we get rid of patents and copyright - the better it > will be for all of us. > > Harry > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Tanya wrote: > > >Wow, this pretty disturbing. I have worked in new media/internet world for > >8 years now and my tolerance for some of the language and euphemisms has > >all but tapped out ie. Seekers & Solvers!? Like you said Arthur, keep your > >brains at home just send us your ideas. And on another level, what are we > >to make of the name innocentive , with the root innocent? > > > >To be provocative, though, it is an interesting idea and I m not exactly > >sure which 8000 scientists signed up for this service, but it seems to > >have resonated with some people. Do we assume that is just poor economic > >conditions? Also, is it not quite probably that these types of working > >arrangements might come to be typical for knowledge workers/symbolic > >analysts? And if so, how would we enforce fair treatment in such alien > >terrain? > > > >Subject: [Futurework] globalizing and privatizing R and D > > > > Arthur wrote: > > > >I received this email and have removed the senders name and other > >details. It demonstrates the powerful use of the net, the > >commoditization and privatization of research and the increasing > >irrelevancy of the "brain drain" > > > >Keep the brains at home, just send us your best ideas. We'll send cash. > > > >arthur > > > >For those interested, our group in e.Lilly has created an internet-based > >open source platform to promote scientific collaboration and innovation > >worldwide. Through this website www.innocentive.com, R&D-driven > >multinational corporations can sign up with us to post scientific > >challenges that need solutions ("Seekers"). These challenges are open to > >scientists worldwide ("Solvers"), and whoever solves a problem is entitled > >to a specific bounty ( a financial award ) typically ranging from US $2000 > >to $100,000. Since its launch in June 2002 through our spin-off company, > >Innocentive, Inc ( based in Boston), over 50 challenges have been posted, > >with a total value of challenges worth over $2 million currently. Our last > >award was to a chemist in India for US$75,000. Most of these challenges > >started out in organic chemistry, but we have now expanded into other > >fields such as biology, etc. Over 8000 scientists have registered with us > >online > > > ><http://www.innocentive.com/about/index.html>http://www.innocentive.com/abo ut/index.html > > > ****************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of LA > Box 655 > Tujunga CA 91042 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > ******************************* > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 1/10/2003 > --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 1/10/2003
****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 1/10/2003
